Poll

Is our infantry a bunch of “grunts”

Yes
2 (12.5%)
No, we have an intelligent infantry
2 (12.5%)
Some are intelligent, most are not
5 (31.3%)
Most are intelligent, some are not
7 (43.8%)

Total Members Voted: 16

Voting closed: October 01, 2017, 10:36:44

Author Topic: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”  (Read 15710 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ConsideringCareers…

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #50 on: September 25, 2017, 22:12:42 »
You are welcome. Good luck.  :)

I have to say, I love this forum, everybody is so helpful and kind!
I am a prospective member of the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically interested in the Army. Any help or guidance you can give is greatly appreciated.
All comments of mine are my opinions only, unless otherwise stated.
Thank you,
Noah

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,129
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts” c
« Reply #51 on: September 26, 2017, 01:19:08 »
'Twas not I who posted that, but daftandbarmy, with whom I was on course in Gagnam in 1979. I was merely responding.

Oh great, now they can all guess our age.  ::)

Does this 64 Patt webbing make me look old and fat?
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 214,092
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,342
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #52 on: September 26, 2017, 01:39:41 »
Well, it was rather minimalist...

Maybe you should stick with the Tac Corset Vest, cinched nice and tight.

Offline ConsideringCareers…

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #53 on: September 26, 2017, 08:42:06 »
Well, it was rather minimalist...

Maybe you should stick with the Tac Corset Vest, cinched nice and tight.

Wow, lol (Can I say this, or on this forum should I have said “that made me laugh”?)
                                                                                                                                :sarcasm:
I am a prospective member of the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically interested in the Army. Any help or guidance you can give is greatly appreciated.
All comments of mine are my opinions only, unless otherwise stated.
Thank you,
Noah

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 214,092
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,342
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #54 on: September 26, 2017, 11:45:19 »
Some explanation for those unfortunates lacking 64 Pattern webbing experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkoKdheBpDs

Offline medicineman

  • Well stuck into my new job and thoroughly enjoying it.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,185
  • In Arduis Fidelis
    • Fed By The Firehose
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #55 on: September 26, 2017, 15:02:11 »
I don't miss my 64 pattern mess tin/canteen carrying non-sense...luckily, I had some 56 pattern pouches to actually carry my magazines in for my FN or SMG.

MM
MM

Remember the basics of Medicine - "Pink is GOOD, Blue is BAD, Air goes in AND out, Blood Goes Round and Round"

I may sound like a pessimist, but I am a realist.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2019, 13:04:56 »
Bump -

I recall a Canadian General, I believe it was Rocky Rockingham, who argued for an army of Tigers.  He followed in the footsteps of Bill Slim, famous for his disregard for Elite Tree Climbers, but, unstinting in his support for ensuring the infantry was a priority selection, well educated, trained and respected.

A US General is the latest to come to the same conclusion.  He wants all Army and Marine infantry, especially Light Infantry, to be treated more like Rangers and moved up the SOF scale.

Quote
"We went to Marine Force Recon, we looked at Delta Force, and it seems to me that the sweet spot in that is the Ranger Regiment.

"You don't turn them into individuals like you do with Delta. It's still a team sport at the Ranger Regiment level, but you give them the resources and the exceptional ability to recruit, select, train and retain, and you get to a level of competence, frankly, that is unparalleled in the world."

Quote
"Let's say instead of having 3,000 Ranger-quality, light infantry, we have 55,000," he said. "How much of a difference is that going to make in our ability to fight wars in the future? I'll tell you ... in terms of outcomes and success on the battlefield at a lowest possible cost, I think it's far more impactful than a new aircraft carrier or a new fighter."

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/14/retired-general-train-pay-army-and-marine-infantry-elite-force.html
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,104
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,027
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2019, 13:12:16 »
"Let's say instead of having 3,000 Ranger-quality, light infantry, we have 55,000," he said. "How much of a difference is that going to make in our ability to fight wars in the future? I'll tell you ... in terms of outcomes and success on the battlefield at a lowest possible cost, I think it's far more impactful than a new aircraft carrier or a new fighter."

Sage words... coming from a land lubber...
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,129
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2019, 10:49:29 »
Bump -

I recall a Canadian General, I believe it was Rocky Rockingham, who argued for an army of Tigers.  He followed in the footsteps of Bill Slim, famous for his disregard for Elite Tree Climbers, but, unstinting in his support for ensuring the infantry was a priority selection, well educated, trained and respected.

A US General is the latest to come to the same conclusion.  He wants all Army and Marine infantry, especially Light Infantry, to be treated more like Rangers and moved up the SOF scale.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/14/retired-general-train-pay-army-and-marine-infantry-elite-force.html

If you've ever seen 'Special Forces' try to dig in and manage a defensive position, you would soon understand why we need 'normal' infantry - and other supporting arms and services - and alot more of them.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #59 on: February 18, 2019, 11:10:08 »
If you've ever seen 'Special Forces' try to dig in and manage a defensive position, you would soon understand why we need 'normal' infantry - and other supporting arms and services - and alot more of them.

And thus the reason that Bill Slim has always been my hero.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,129
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2019, 20:32:11 »
And thus the reason that Bill Slim has always been my hero.

I guess the point is that we all have an important role to play as part of a bigger team. When we forget that, lots of the wrong people get hurt unnecessarily.

Anyways, if they try to 'upskill' their regular infantry to Rangers/SOF, I'm guessing they'd lose over 50% in the selection process.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Online Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 216,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,753
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2019, 21:57:16 »
Anyways, if they try to 'upskill' their regular infantry to Rangers/SOF, I'm guessing they'd lose over 50% in the selection process.

I think Slim, among others, was against forming specialized infantry units such as commandoes, as opposed to re-rolling. Special Forces is a different matter. In Malaya during the 40s and into the 50s, the Brits tried re-rolling troops from the Parachute Regiment as SAS without selection, but it was not successful because perfectly good infantry soldiers can have difficulty operating in small numbers deep behind enemy lines.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,129
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2019, 23:08:25 »
I think Slim, among others, was against forming specialized infantry units such as commandoes, as opposed to re-rolling. Special Forces is a different matter. In Malaya during the 40s and into the 50s, the Brits tried re-rolling troops from the Parachute Regiment as SAS without selection, but it was not successful because perfectly good infantry soldiers can have difficulty operating in small numbers deep behind enemy lines.

Well, kind of...

No real problems with the Parachute Regiment companies, which came later, but there were with some of the earlier SAS drafts. All in all, the Malayan Scouts were successful, and led to the post-WW2 rebirth of the SAS, but points to the need for a more thoughtful and well managed approach to creating a SOF capability:

 http://wingedsoldiers.co.uk/sas-malaya.html

« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 23:18:10 by daftandbarmy »
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 219,647
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,056
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2019, 23:47:23 »
There’s a place for SOF and a place for good old fashioned close with and destroy the enemy infantry.  The roles are different and you need the capabilities of the infantry to take and hold key terrain.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Ó Donnghaile

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,701
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 75
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2019, 23:54:04 »
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who was in 1/75 for a few years. He was of the opinion that what made the Ranger Battalions (and thus the Regiment) great at their core role (airfield seizure) upon founding and the subsequent Special Operations Direct Action Force role they acquired as a result of the GWOT, was that they were in fact an infantry force.

But he said, what separated the Regiment from all other infantry formations (and Special Forces) within the U.S. Army was the Ranger standard and the ability to RTU (what they call RFS or release for standards) anyone back to the big army. Unlike Special Forces (who have unique MOS's) where lower performing members can only really be kicked around to other elements under the SF umbrella unless they committed an offense for which they could be discharged from the Army.
The measure may be thought bold, but I am of the opinion the boldest are the safest.

- Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 178,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,053
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #65 on: February 19, 2019, 00:13:26 »
Bump -

I recall a Canadian General, I believe it was Rocky Rockingham, who argued for an army of Tigers. . . .

I think you may be referring to Col DA Nicholson's article in the 1973 Mobile Command Newsletter "Where, oh where have all the Tigers gone?"

There's a reprint of it in the RCR Regimental Rogue here (along with several companion artilcles/letters on the subject: http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/oldtiger.htm#Where

The article at the time brought about considerable debate amongst us subbies who were fully convinced we'd all be tigers if the damn field officers and above weren't constantly putting the brakes on us. I fondly remember one mess dinner at 3rd Horse which was also attended by the last graduating Artillery Air OP course where the damage to our crested stemware and general mayhem in the mess was monumental. By the next morning's coffee break most of us had already signed chits for a half dozen glasses each but notwithstanding this, the CO decided it was necessary to call all of us up on the carpet collectively (including the padre) to tear a strip off our asses for our debauchery. I marked him down in the back of my mind as not being a Tiger. In those days it was clear that while some messes (and units) still understood the "fun and games night" concept others were already being run by bureaucrats.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 790
Re: Are the Infantry just a bunch of “grunts”
« Reply #66 on: February 19, 2019, 04:44:34 »
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who was in 1/75 for a few years. He was of the opinion that what made the Ranger Battalions (and thus the Regiment) great at their core role (airfield seizure) upon founding and the subsequent Special Operations Direct Action Force role they acquired as a result of the GWOT, was that they were in fact an infantry force.

But he said, what separated the Regiment from all other infantry formations (and Special Forces) within the U.S. Army was the Ranger standard and the ability to RTU (what they call RFS or release for standards) anyone back to the big army. Unlike Special Forces (who have unique MOS's) where lower performing members can only really be kicked around to other elements under the SF umbrella unless they committed an offense for which they could be discharged from the Army.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y6Y3jPO-Cg


An interview with General McChrystal on an excellent podcast called London Real.  I only included one part, but the entire interview is available to view for free.

In the interview he makes several remarks about how throughout the various organizations he went to throughout his Army career, the Rangers were the closest in actually being what they said they were.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?